Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

Or perhaps you read the portions of his text which you consider put him in a bad light, and you ignore any words which might temper that
the words that temper that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS VIEWS OF EUGENICS OR RACE. how hard is this? you post something where darwin says we should 'care for the weak' but you ignore him saying that we shouldn't let those 'lesser' individuals breed...and that is the heart of eugenics...and you totally ignore it. so darwin's words which 'put him in a good light' have NOTHING to do with his other view, and do not contradict those other views at all.
The only person here, tsmith, pretending that Darwin is considered in any way more-than-human is you
of course, the darwiniacs desperate attempts to deny and discredit ANYTHING which puts darwin in a bad light mean nothing...right.
You know, the “science” parts of evolution are almost entirely supported by Michael Behe amongst others in the ID movement
this just shows how little you know about ID. and you cannot divorce the 'social' part of evolution from the theory...sorry.
The Anti-Defamation League do not consider that Darwin is to “blame” for Hitler. Neither do the consensus of historians of Nazism and World War II
the ADL is a LIBERAL political organization....please...and uh who are these 'consensus' of historians??? hmmmm?? you have not listed any that I am aware of...I on the other hand, have listed several that disagree with you.
My friends and colleagues are largely all evolutionists. I am quite certain they all believe in right and wrong
there is no evolutionary basis for right and wrong...only survival matters...and whatever is used to survive is justified. you appropriate christian concepts of right and wrong and think you are so clever. so tell me what is moral, and immoral, in an evolutionary framework??? and why.
Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism
he did??? where do you get this at??? Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.' and wasn't stalin a marxist???
you have to ignore an awful lot of evidence otherwise to insist that “Darwinism” is as evil as you pretend it is
where is all this evidence of yours...all I see are glib assertions by you and other dariwniacs with very little back it up.tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

tribune7
ou don’t think it’s possible that the ADL can be wrong? That new study can overturn old ideas?
My problem is, tribune7, that since the end of the second world war we have seen an increasing influence of science and secularism in Europe where I live, and I do not see any evidence whatsoever of the "moral decline" you seem to think will befall the world if science and darwinism are not crushed beneath the feet of your revelation and faith.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

No and Darwin did not condone or approve of any extermination. Darwin made some predictions
of course not!! Saint Darwin the Just and Good would NEVER approve of anything like that...he was such a saintly holy man!!! please. why don't you go ahead and post his rebuke of his cousin Galton, and his sons, for their involvement (founding of) in the eugenics movement?? his theory gave 'scientific' legitmacy to racism, eugenics, and genocide. truth hurts, deal with it.tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

tsmith
could have fooled me. His own words are ignored or whitewashed to make him appear a just and moral man.
Or perhaps you read the portions of his text which you consider put him in a bad light, and you ignore any words which might temper that. The only person here, tsmith, pretending that Darwin is considered in any way more-than-human is you.
yes as I said before, evolution is a theory of everything, trying to explain all of human behavior…it is much more than just a ’science’ theory…
Then the persons who try to extend "evolution" beyond science are not practising science. You know, the "science" parts of evolution are almost entirely supported by Michael Behe amongst others in the ID movement. ID is simply the notion that science is best explained through the inference of an Intelligent Designer. You appear to have some other agenda.
you know its impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it. I have provided numerous quotes from darwin, other biologists, and historians…the record is clear.
That cuts both ways, tsmith. Have you looked for the beam in your own eye before casting motes at others? The Anti-Defamation League do not consider that Darwin is to "blame" for Hitler. Neither do the consensus of historians of Nazism and World War II.
emergent…isn’t that darwin-speak for a miracle? this sentence doesn’t make much sense. darwinists don’t think that morality implies an intelligent designer.
Do you really think, tsmith, that the only credible argument that anyone could possibly make for Intelligent Design is the existence of morality!?
but the morality of evolution is clear….as provine acknowledged..no god, no right, no wrong…
You are tilting at windmills, tsmith, enemies who exist only in your head. I live in Europe. My friends and colleagues are largely all evolutionists. I am quite certain they all believe in right and wrong. I appreciate that you apparently cannot see their basis for doing so. I put it to you that this is your problem, not theirs.
is it any surprise that the 20th century was the bloodiest on record, given this new darwinian morality?
Or is that also to do with history, technology, and happenstance? Stalin killed more people than Hitler, and he rejected Darwinism. The Conquistadors wiped out much of South and Central America, without Darwin to guide them. Hitler's rise (according to most historians) was largely to do with nationalism, long-standing anti-Semitism and the legacy of the Imperial-age-driven First World War. Even if Darwin said bad things, tsmith, and even if Hitler's rise was even in part assisted by Darwin's legacy, you have to ignore an awful lot of evidence otherwise to insist that "Darwinism" is as evil as you pretend it is. But then again, tsmith, it is "impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it.".olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

In conclusion: 1) Aryan master race idea came from Christian creationist 2) Hate against Jews was common in Christian writing (aka Martin Luther) 3) Hitler believed in a creator God that created man, and his concept of evolution/eugenics to keep the Aryan race pure is more similar to the Intellegent Design concept that microevolution occurs through natural/artificial selection to only be involved in 'preserving species' (as stated by Dembski and Wells) than it is to Darwin's theory that natural selection leads to origins of new species. Yeah, Hitler was greatly influenced by Darwin.hdx_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

In the movie "Expelled" Stein was talking with a German woman who was taking care of the place that Nazis did human experiments and such. When she was asked what linked to this behavior she did not hesitate when she said "Darwinism".Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

olearyfan -- Here is what the Anti-Defamation League And Weikart's recent research shows that the Anti-Defamation League is mistaken. You don't think it's possible that the ADL can be wrong? That new study can overturn old ideas? What you are doing is citing authority without questioning it or attempting to address Weikart's claim. Why so dismissive of it?tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

hdx:
There is no characteristics of animals that is missing in humans.
Yet there are characteristics of humans that are missing from other animals.
The genetic difference between humans and its closest primate relatives is very small compared to primates and other classes of animals.
We don't really know what that difference is.
If human cells were fundamentally different from primates or if the genetic code or genes found in humans were different from primates than this would have smashed Darwin’s theories.
That is wrong seeing that Darwin didn't even know about the genetic code. Evolution does NOT posit living organisms arose just once. Evolution doies not posit a genetic code. Heck non-telic processes cannot even account for a code.Joseph_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

tribune7
The tragedies are real and the influence is real, and the importance of coming to grips with their causes in the hope of not repeating them should be obvious.
The mind boggles. Do you really think that the causes of the rise of Nazism have not been studied to an incredible depth by academics and universities worldwide? And that German and Jewish academics in particular have not been extremely thorough in their efforts? Here is what the Anti-Defamation League has to say about the very allegations you continue to repeat: "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis. "
Without revelation and without the wisdom that the material is temporary, the fact is that morality devolves to the Darwinian in that the strong get to oppress the weak and as often as not thrive quite nicely — in the temporal sense — by doing so.
Revelation? All science so far. It appears to me, tribune, that you have no interest in Intelligent Design as science at all. It appears to me that you are just here to promote your religion. I could of course be wrong.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

… the core concept of Darwin’s theory is that man is just another animal and that survival, until procreation, equals success.tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

do they mention anything about EXTERMINATING ‘lower’ races???
No and Darwin did not condone or approve of any extermination. Darwin made some predictions. And although he wasn't 100% correct, Europeans did wipe out a large of number of indigenous people.hdx_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Man is just another animal, hdx, right?
There is no characteristics of animals that is missing in humans. The genetic difference between humans and its closest primate relatives is very small compared to primates and other classes of animals. Darwin's theories had a chance to be falsified. If human cells were fundamentally different from primates or if the genetic code or genes found in humans were different from primates than this would have smashed Darwin's theories. But lo and behold they were pretty much the same. Creationism can not make such predictions as anything is possible with God.hdx_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

you have neatly overlooked the explicit anchorage of the reasoning in Descent of Man.
No I haven't.
... the core concept of Darwin’s theory.
Is not concerned with the idea of a created master race of men who risk destruction by breeding with Hitlers percieved inferior 'races'.
Has it ever dawned on you that the creator herr Scghicklegruber had in mind was Nature, capital N deliberate?
He is truly full of contradictions then, when he says he is 'doing the lords work' you are claiming that he is referring to nature, when he refers to the 'will of the eternal creator' the 'will' he is invoking is just a natural cause? You truly have some strange ideas about language.
In short, your turnabout rhetorical tactic fails. Furthermore, your turnabout accusation on “selectively” quoting Darwin fails.
I demonstrated that you selectively misquoted a piece of text. This is not a 'turnabout accusation', your own retort is just an ad homenim distraction. I've made specific points about the accounts of history you are presenting, you respond with personal attacks and distractions. Please stop. In 244 you seem to be claiming that Darwin advocated war as a solution to overpopulation. Certainly war, like many things, kills people and as such has to be considered when studying human history. War, like disease, affects survival and reproductive success. Discussing this fact does not mean one is advocating war. Even if Darwin did advocate war and inspired Hitler what does this really have to do with a descriptive scientific theory. The question of Darwins ethics is a distraction from the Science that this website claims to be about - does evolution occur or is it an illusion. What Darwin or Hitler believed is irrelevant to the issue of whether evolution happens, for without Darwin or Hitler evolution, if it is true, is still a fact you have to deal with.BillB_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Footnote: I guess I need to put up the following, from App 8 my always linked. Note this is on coherent grounding, not on whether one who holds to evolutionary materialism can be in the conventional sense a logical and moral person. With certain limitations, all of us are somehwat reasoning and somewhat moral. But we need to ask, what view of reality provides a coherent ground for that? Okay, excerpts . . . and bye for now: _______________ >>. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . . In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that "Right" and "Wrong" are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies . . . >> AND, from Will Hawthorne: >> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is'. >> _______________ That -- as Provine's quote TSmith used also documents (along with many otehr statements over the years) -- is what has to be cogently addressed by those who serve evolutionary materialism. I will simply note that after years in this blog and elsewhere I have yet to see a solid and satisfying answer from that perspective, especially as a material is does not seem to provide a ground for the ought that we all know we need and experience. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Breeding (aka eugenics) is microevolution and Dembski and Wells acknowledge it. Does this mean they support eugenics?
do they mention anything about EXTERMINATING 'lower' races??? didn't think so...tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Man is just another animal, hdx, right?tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

No-one pretends that Darwin is the be-and-end-all of evolutionary thought, or that he was anything other than a human being with human failings
could have fooled me. His own words are ignored or whitewashed to make him appear a just and moral man.
Here is a proposition for you… Isn’t the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at?
yes as I said before, evolution is a theory of everything, trying to explain all of human behavior...it is much more than just a 'science' theory...
Except, of course, for those anti-evolutionists who in the absence of being able to prevent any evidence whatsoever in favor of their own positions, have to smear and misrepresent their perceived “opponents” in a futile attempt at poisoning the well of debate
you know its impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who either ignores the evidence, or just dismisses it. I have provided numerous quotes from darwin, other biologists, and historians...the record is clear.
If morality is an emergent property of humanity and the human spirit, then does that not speak wonders for the power of evolution, and the inference that evolution is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer?
emergent...isn't that darwin-speak for a miracle? this sentence doesn't make much sense. darwinists don't think that morality implies an intelligent designer. but the morality of evolution is clear....as provine acknowledged..no god, no right, no wrong...and it is this view of morality, and the human condition, that gave rise to the eugenics movement and hitler. is it any surprise that the 20th century was the bloodiest on record, given this new darwinian morality?tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

olearyfan -- Isn’t the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at? This is the problem with those who object to tracing Darwin's influence on the great tragedies of the 20th Century. The tragedies are real and the influence is real, and the importance of coming to grips with their causes in the hope of not repeating them should be obvious. Now you said it is a fact that morality "*does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit." In no way is that a fact. Without revelation and without the wisdom that the material is temporary, the fact is that morality devolves to the Darwinian in that the strong get to oppress the weak and as often as not thrive quite nicely -- in the temporal sense -- by doing so.tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

What is ironic is that Creationists and ID supporters view microevolution true and that it is a force for preserving species (almost like Hitler who believed God created man and wanted to preserve the Aryan race) Dembski and Wells in The Design of Life
In conclusion, natural selection helps a species to flourish by favoring gene combinations that allow it to adapt to new and changing conditions. When confined to combinations of existing genes, natural selection is therefore a force for preserving rather than transforming species.
Just like eugenics is a way of preserving the purity of the species. By logical extension of ID thought, if natural selection helps preserve the species, shouldn't he be applying it? The logical consequence of ID is eugenics. We know ID supporters approve of microevolution Dembski and Wells again
In other words, it requires a massive form change known as macroevolution. The occurence of microevolution is not a matter of debate between Darwinists and intelligent design proponents. Microevolution can be observed, and scientists acknowledge it. ... What breeders accomplish is diversification within a given species, a limited form change known as microevolution.
Breeding (aka eugenics) is microevolution and Dembski and Wells acknowledge it. Does this mean they support eugenics?hdx_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

KF: Instead of trying to deflect and play at immoral equivalency, today’s darwinists would be better advised to address the moral hazard in Darwinist thought and especially in unbridled evolutionary materialism.
I do not know of anyone who proposes that "unbridled evolutionary materialism" should be a basis for morality. Not Dawkins, not PZ Myers, no-one.
tsmith: ...it has no bearing on whether darwin thought they should breed, he clearly did not. and the other quotes are ignored because Darwin was such a kind, caring, good to his mother, saintly bearded old guy, and not a negative word about St. Darwin the Good is allowed to penetrate the darwiniac mindset.
No-one pretends that Darwin is the be-and-end-all of evolutionary thought, or that he was anything other than a human being with human failings. Except, of course, for those anti-evolutionists who in the absence of being able to prevent any evidence whatsoever in favor of their own positions, have to smear and misrepresent their perceived "opponents" in a futile attempt at poisoning the well of debate. Here is a proposition for you... Isn't the fact that morality clearly *does* exist, and *does* appear to have an evolutionary basis and evolutionary benefit, something to remark at? If morality is an emergent property of humanity and the human spirit, then does that not speak wonders for the power of evolution, and the inference that evolution is best explained by the existence of an intelligent designer? Just insisting that "unguided evolution cannot produce morality" gets us nowhere, given that evolutionists today (no matter what Darwin, Galton and Hitler said) clearly do not reject the notion that morality exists. Unless, of course, we are not interested in promoting intelligent design - and all we wish to do is to force our own notions of morality onto everyone else.olearyfan_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

BillB -- Darwin never claimed that humans and pigs were the same species. Neither did I, but Darwin did say that neither is a special creation. And that pretty much gets to the nature of man.tribune7_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Regarding your selective quotes from Darwin, These have already been corrected in this thread
quite the opposite. yes the darwiniac 'correction' consists of another quote by darwin, no doubt out of context, that shows he 'cared' for the less fortunate...isn't that nice, but of course it has no bearing on whether darwin thought they should breed, he clearly did not. and the other quotes are ignored because Darwin was such a kind, caring, good to his mother, saintly bearded old guy, and not a negative word about St. Darwin the Good is allowed to penetrate the darwiniac mindset.
It’s time to turn from Darwinist deflective talking points to facing the facts of the key historical documents.
very true, but it won't happen. they will not let facts get in the way of their worship of the hairyone of evolution....tsmith_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

BillB: Furthermore, your turnabout accusation on "selectively" quoting Darwin fails. FYI, I have given the wider context that shows the framework of his theory, and how he applied it to man. In that context, his root of the concept of natural selection was Malthusian population collapse through positive checks, which includes war. So in Chs 5 - 7 of Descent, he was simply closing back the circle by re-applying his by then generally accepted theory (among the intelligentsia) to man. For Darwin, natural selection includes war and the like, as can be seen from his remarks on the Turks in this letter to William Graham dated July 3, 1881:
I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turk, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.
It's time to turn from Darwinist deflective talking points to facing the facts of the key historical documents. Note, too, how by 1897-8 H G Wells pretty well understood the implications and tried to warn against them. (He ended up being sadly prophetic. History teaches us that we have a habit of refusing to accept warnings until it is too late.) Instead of trying to deflect and play at immoral equivalency, today's darwinists would be better advised to address the moral hazard in Darwinist thought and especially in unbridled evolutionary materialism. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

BillB: 1] you have neatly overlooked the explicit anchorage of the reasoning in Descent of Man. 2] for instance in the cite on the fox etc, you forget that he struggle is meant to lead on to progress for the species, i.e the core concept of Darwin's theory. It is when the author has to deal with the fact of persistence of kinds of life forms that he trips up in a contradiction. (I am not arguing for the coherence of Mein Kampf! or for that matter either Origin of Descent: recall the fossil record does NOT show gradual branching of a tree of life, contrary to the diagram in origin.} 3] Has it ever dawned on you that the creator herr Scghicklegruber had in mind was Nature, capital N deliberate? (on the balance of evidence he was a racialist neopagan with occult sympathies, driven by a version on Balvatsky's Aryan man evolutionary myth.) In short, your turnabout rhetorical tactic fails. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.
Each to its kind - ever so scientific eh! Now the first paragraph you reference does read as an argument that humans ought to avoid breeding with other humans if they regard them as somehow 'lower' and if Hitler believed that this is what Darwin was claiming then you would need to do two things. Firstly show where Hitler referenced Darwins work, and secondly show where Darwin advocated this type of behaviour. As a follow up you might want to provide some real evidence that the ToE prescribes any rules for human behaviour. Interesting to note onlookers that KF avoided paragraphs from the wider context like this:
The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: * Lowering of the level of the higher race; * Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator. And as a sin this act is rewarded.
Hitler has a strong belief in a created pure race which he thought needed to be defended. Regarding your selective quotes from Darwin, These have already been corrected in this thread - Darwin was explicit about how applying selective breeding to humans was morally abhorrent. Also you quote a passage about extermination with the first part missing:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,18 will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
It is clear that this is a device for illustrating to the reader how apparent gaps in the evidence for evolution are to be expected, nowhere is he suggesting that people ought to behave like this but he certainly observes that, sadly, they do. Your quote here:
Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection.
States that Humans are subjected to natural selection pressures like any other creature. Were you trying to make a point? I didn't see any justification for applying un-natural selection there. Your long quotes from H. G. Wells is certainly a good warning of the moral hazards of co-opting and distorting scientific ideas to prop up a flawed ideology, Darwin warned against this as well. I hope that has helped to clear away some of the oily smoke of burning ad hominem strawmen that has been poisoning the debate.BillB_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

lamarck (224): "And the worst part is all the kids are taught that it’s already proven. Public schools want to make sure the kid graduates feeling like an animal. I see this on TV, on the radio, everywhere; I can tell when someone thinks they’re an animal, it permeates who they are, and the overall effect is hyper-permeating our society right now." Unfortunately for you, it certainly is proven that we are animals - placental mammals, in fact. That's why a placenta came out when you were born and why your mother was able to feed you milk (if she so chose) using her mammary glands (hence the name). It's also good evidence against humans being the product of design - why on earth would any designer actually design males with utterly useless mammary glands?Gaz_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

HDX: Reflect carefully on "just another" in light of the issues here. (Hint, why did Aristotle speak of RATIONAL animality as a defining feature of the human essence? Similarly, do we blame a tiger as a murderer if he stalks, attacks and kills a man? Do we blame a MAN if he does the same? Why or why not?) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

Darwin made the philosophical claim that man is just another animal.
This is not a philosophical claim. This is actual scientific fact.hdx_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

PS: on the idea that macro-evolution throught is essentially neutral on matters of worldviews and the history of ideas, cf Peterson's discussion here.kairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Continuing: Now, a challenge to open-mindedness, from H G Wells, in the opening words of War of the Worlds: _____________ >> No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit? >> _______________ 1 --> Wells, who studied under Huxley in Imperial College, her plainly identifies the moral hazard of unbridled evolutionary materialism. 2 --> He here transfers from Darwin's discussion of Caucasians vs Negroes or Australian Aborigines [the latter being just a step above the gorilla in Darwin's plain view], or Turks, to an imaginary superior race that sees earth as its best opportunity for survival. 3 --> And instead of Britons wiping out Tasmanians, he here sees Martians trying to wipe our Britons. [Notice how Darwin applies natural selection to malthusian positive checks, including aggressive war. Indeed, he has originally drawn the idea of struggle for existence from Malthus' theory of population crashes.] 4 --> So, the moral hazard is laid out, in a context that hints at an alternative: missionaries sent to mars. (Observe the rhetorical clash with "the intellectual side of man" in that . . . ) 5 --> Then he raises he issue of the is-ought gap, though the challenge of the plank in our eyes: we must be sympathetic to Martians, as we to have our own guilt in the matter, even as a "Christian" civlisation. 6 --> A subtlety lurks: a material part of what happened with Aborigines in Australia was in the context of documenting the racialist views of descent that became popular in the late C19. 7 --> Thus, we come tot he alternative, which can be put in the words of Jesus on sawdust and planks in eyes, in Matt 7::
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
8 --> So, there must be a mutuality of commitment to the truth and the right, which then leads to mutual recognition of the need to change from the false and the wrong tot he right, and to helping one another in that process. 9 --> This is just the opposite of the "shut-up!" rhetoric approach, that seeks to silence the voice of correction by trying to tar with the brush of immoral equivalency. 10 --> But, if we shut out the voice of mutual correction, we will only hasten the slide off the edge of the cliff. ++++++ So, let us now face some serious issues and seek to correct a major moral hazard -- unbridled evolutionary materialism -- that in the name of science has marred the history of the century just past and threatens to destroy our civlisation in the one just ahead. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 10, 2009
July
07
Jul
10
10
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply